Posted by Igor on 11/03/07 18:56

On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 11:24:18 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
@aol.com> wrote:

>Igor wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that CRT is deader at the high end than it is at the
>> low.
>
>Not true. As I said earlier, look for surplus monitors that use the Sony
>Trinitron flat CRT. The LCD vs CRT argument is akin to VHS vs Batamax.
>Betamax was always the best format, but VHS won out do to a stiff marketing
>campaign and propaganda. And as others have pointed out, you do get more
>screen real estate with LCD. This comes at a steep price of lack of color
>accuracy and high price.
>

I don't think I expressed myself properly. I didn't mean to suggest
that one technology was either superior or inferior to the other, that
professionals aren't still using the CRT monitors they already have,
or that you can't still pick up used or surplus high-end CRT monitors
if you look hard enough for them.

What I meant by "dead" is that, as far as I can tell, high-end CRTs
simply aren't being made anymore (and low- and mid- range ones won't
be long in joining them, I'm sure). This is simply a statement of fact
and has nothing to do with my preferences.

Somewhere else in this thread I've posted some info about a newer
technology called SED. SED seems to combine the best attributes of
CRTs and LCDs. I'm starting to wonder if part of the reason
manufacturers are phasing out CRT monitors from their product lines
might not be because they know SED is on its way and they don't want
to be stuck with a bunch of inventory they won't be able to sell once
SED hits the market.
--
"Those of us whose brains did not die in college are
actually stunned by just how stupid academic ideas
are." -- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Back to original message]